From: Wietse Venema (no email)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2001 - 13:01:24 EST
Greg A. Woods:
> [ On Thursday, November 1, 2001 at 00:29:35 (-0800), Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: another interesting spam trick...
> >
> > I agree that it _should't_ be necessary, but if you are trying to bend
> > over backwards to avoid false positives, then you will use the ``trimming''
> > of domain names that I described, also, as part of your validation of the
> > HELO/EHLO name.
>
> NO! No trimming! We already bend over backwards by allowing a literal
> IP address!!!! If the sending SMTP client can't get either one of those
> right then it does not deserve any more attention than any other loud
> racuous fraud who's claiming to be someone he or she obviously is not
> and can not be!
I believe in a layered approach.
There is no such thing as a single super all powerfull killer
restriction that solves all problems. Some junk mail will get past.
You will need other restrictions if you want to stop all junk mail.
Requiring that the HELO parameter is in the same domain as the
client hostname is good enough. Other restrictions will still
be needed anyway. They can stop the remainder of the junk mail.
Wietse
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users
|
|
|